Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Technology

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I suggest evaluating all of the sources listed, seeing if there's sufficient info that can be added to the article, and, if not, renom in a few months. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Technology

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm struggling to find the notability of this company, the article certainly does not assert it. Also written like an advertisement, among other issues. Since the article has existed since 2006 I chose AfD. Thorncrag 16:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and I unable to find any among the Google results. Msnicki (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly non-notable. Not quite spam, but closer than I would like. Pushing otherwise non-notable products. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is one of those situations where I am personally familiar with the subject, but have a hard time finding the quality of sources that I usually expect. It's mostly just blog articles from a mix of mainstream and industry sources, which isn't surprising considering that this company mainly provides non-sexy infrastructure services. None of these would establish notability on their own but the breadth of coverage indicates that there may be something worth keeping here. For example:

Hence, weak keep. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Per sources:

Lemon, Sumner (Febraury 23, 2009). "Motorola Sells Good Technology to Visto". PC World. Retrieved December 28, 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)
Gohring, Nancy (July 21, 2011). "T-Mobile Securing Android Phones With Good Technology". PC World. Retrieved December 28, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Good Technology Buys Up CloudSync". Techcrunch.com. January 27, 2010. Retrieved January 01, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.